Case: State of Maharashtra Versus Rajesh s/o Nagnath Waghmode

(30th June 2018)

I Parties Involved

1. Rajesh Naghnath Waghmode (Accused)

2. Daivshalal Kishan Yeote (Complainant)

3. Narayan Tarke (Witness/Tenant)

4. Kishanrao Ramrao Yeote (Victim/Husband of the complainant)

5. Ganesh Ghorband (Friend of the husband)

6. Doctor Bhagat (Witness)

II Provision Charged on the Accused

Under section 307, 452 of the Indian Penal Code 1882

Section 307- Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.
When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt
is caused, be punished with death.

Section 452- House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits
house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or
for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of
wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine .
III Jurisdiction and Court

In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-1 at Nanded, presided over by A.G. Mohabey

IV Facts of the Case

Complainant filed a complaint that Mr Rajesh Waghmode attacked her husband on 15.9.2012 at
around 8-8.15 pm with a knife in the left side of the stomach. As per the complainant the accused
was a teacher in the same school as her Husband and he had called her husband right before the
incident occurred. After the attack her husband fell down and one of their tenants, Tarke, helped
take Kishanrao to the hospital. Also the complainant has stated that the accused used to visit the
house often therefore she knew his name.

1.1 Proved Facts

a. The prosecution proved that at about 8pm at the courtyard of complainants house, the
accused assaulted the husband of the complainant by means of the knife on his left side of the
stomach with intention and knowledge that by this act he could have caused death u/s 307.

1. Witness number 1 was the complainant herself who agreed that her husband had cordial relations
with Ganesh Ghorband and he also managed finances. The accused did not have good relations
with Ganesh. She was unaware if the accused had filed any writ petition.
2. Narayan Tarke agreed that he came out of the house after listening to the victim shouting and that
he saw him lying in the verandah and accused was standing there with a knife in his hand.
3. Doctor Bhagat who attended to the victim has proved that the injuries sustained by him as as per
the exhibit and such injury is dangerous to life.
4. The clothes and weapon of the accused was sent to CA and blood of the victim was found on it.
b. The prosecution also proved that on the aforesaid date and time accused committed house
trespass u/s 452

1.2 Actual Dispute

The dispute was regarding the affairs of school society wehre the vitim was the chairman of credit
society of the employee. Victim did not draw salary for the accused and did not allow him to join his
duties and there was dispute and thus the accused had filed a writ petition.

V Failure in Investigation?

No, there was no failure in the investigation. All the witnesses were thoroughly examined and there was
no discrepancy in their statements or any kind of exaggeration. Moreover there was sufficient evident to
prove that tha the offence was actually committed by the accused.

VI Judgement and Punishment

a. The accused in convicted u/s 235(2) of CrPc for the offence punishable under 307 and 452 of
IPC.
b. The accused is sentenced imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs 10,000 and in case of
default he shall suffer imprisonment of 15 days under section 307 of IPC
c. The accused is sentenced for imprisonment for years and fine of Rs 1000 and in ase of default
imprisonment of 15 days under 452 of IPC.

VII Analysis

All the due processes in the investigation were considered. Both the defense and prosecution were given
an equal opportunity to be heard. The sessions court found enough evidence to prove the accused as
guilty, and there was no lacuna to be found in the judicial process. Though the writ petition filed by the
accused was no given due consideration and had there been timely disposal of the petition such horrific
incident wouldn’t have arose.